Ruth Kelly sends child to Private School...

[Phube]

What's more shocking:

That a former Education secretary send her child not to a school that she's been in charge of for 3-4 years....

Or the fact that Ruth Kelly has children??? Surely she's on the 'other bus'!!!!

[Daggers]

Surely she's on the 'other bus'!!!!

Those Equal Op NHS training sessions paying off for you then Phube?

[The People's Hero]

I don't see anything wrong with this at all. She has the right to send her child to school where she wants to, just as everyone else does. Granted not everyone has the money to do so, but she can't be blamed for giving her child the best education (in her opinion) possible.

[Daggers]

I don't see anything wrong with this at all.

Maybe it has something to do with the misguided policy of "inclusion" foisted on schools rendering them unable to cater for high-achievers and those with learning difficulties due to the inherent problems associated with students that would otherwise have been expelled?

As one of our worst ever Education secretaries, she introduced a series of divisive measures aimed at partial privatisation of the education service with no consideration to quality, consistency or fairness.

By sending one of her spawn to a private school she should openly admit to having failed in her post.

[davieG]

Isn't she following the tradition of politicians and Education Secretaries in particular?

Besides party politics stinks!

[Phube]

Those Equal Op NHS training sessions paying off for you then Phube?

Must have missed that day!!!

But really.....

[Janx]

Maybe it has something to do with the misguided policy of "inclusion" foisted on schools rendering them unable to cater for high-achievers and those with learning difficulties due to the inherent problems associated with students that would otherwise have been expelled?

As one of our worst ever Education secretaries, she introduced a series of divisive measures aimed at partial privatisation of the education service with no consideration to quality, consistency or fairness.

By sending one of her spawn to a private school she should openly admit to having failed in her post.

HOT SPUD WARNING!!

As the father of a "bright" child (not my opinion, although one that I do agree with)

We have had no choice but to pay for private edcuation, the local schools arent even prepared to offer him a place until next year, and they also dont agree with streaming or promotion of bright children to older classes etc, basically keeping all at the same level, what is the sense in that??? as there are MANY disruptive little gits (not their fault, more the parents lack of interest sadly) who will take much of teachers time and efforts and distract from Janx Jr and the ones who ARE keen to learn...

Just some of the quotes from headteacher of the local school....

"we dont believe in competittion"

" we dont agree that children should be forced to learn"

" we dont tell them to take their coats off, its an option"?????

" we dont enforce a learning style when it comes to writing, we merely ask if they would LIKE to do some writing"!!!

So, I voted with my feet and sadly my walllet, which is crucifying to be fair, and I and the Wife have towrk damn hard to pay for it, MY CHOICE, OUR CHOICE...not moaning about that and sadly not all can afford to do this, we barely can...so I feel for those who have NO choice.

Just so you know Janx Jr is spelling 4 letter words( ho ho) and reading and has a sense or discipline, team play, sensitive to his colleagues, learnt many different religion/races, the importance of preparation(homework) and loves every minute... He is 4.

OK so I am a capitalist pig dog and wish that the education system was better, but as I am NOT a socialist, I took the decision to act rather than expect the system to change, and my hand was forced due to Janx Jrs increasing behavoiral problems, due to boredom....

I am sure MANY would have done the same in my shoes... its not a status thing for me.

[The People's Hero]

I seriously suffered at the primary school I attended. It was my local school but in the time I was there went from 15/20% special needs to over 50%. This held me back big time as with a number of my friends whom I believe might have passed the 11+ otherwise. The problem was the school was so inclusive and the teachers' time was taken up helping those with special needs. Clearly these kids need this time, but more able kids should also get the help they need to fulfil their potential.

I don't know what the answer is but it certainly isn't fingerpointing and namecalling at those who have genuinely tried to sort it out.

Having said that, perhaps all R Kelly's are incompetent, irritating losers.

[Phube]

HOT SPUD WARNING!!

As the father of...

...not a status thing for me.

Agree with every thing you say. The worst thing they ever did was stop streaming (luckily I was streamed) and managed to avoid being in classes with, for want of a better word, tw*ts!! I hopefully will have kids in a few years and I'm really not looking forward to the education battles that lie ahead!!

[The People's Hero]

So who's the greater evil? R Kelly the 'singer'? R Kelly the excuse loving football manager? Or R Kelly as discussed in this thread?

[Phube]

So who's the greater evil? R Kelly the 'singer'? R Kelly the excuse loving football manager? Or R Kelly as discussed in this thread?

R Kelly: known (sort of) paedophile.

R Kelly: doing an okay-to-poor job at LCFC.

R Kelly: Lesbo MP, with child at private school, strict Catholic (member of Opus Dei) and talks like she's under water!!!

Ruth; every day of the week!!!!

[Thracian]

It's just the sort of hypocrisy you come to expect. And inevitable with a "Grin and Blair It" leader who's the Godfather of hypocrisy.

[breadandcheese]

It's just the sort of hypocrisy you come to expect. And inevitable with a "Grin and Blair It" leader who's the Godfather of hypocrisy.

I wouldn't call it hypocrisy in this case, more an admission of a fault in her local authority's provision of special needs education.

In all honesty, education needs to be seriously looked at and reviewed from the very beginning. The big social experiment of comprehensives over the past 30 odd years has failed to shoe the benefits expected.

[Head Honcho]

If you can afford to educate your children privately then I believe it is your duty to do so!

I certainly wouldn't send my child to a state school if I could afford not to.

There's a great private school just around the corner from me and it isn't that expensive.

If the government gave some kind of tax rebate to parents choosing this option then maybe more people would use private education for their children, thereby putting less pressure on state schools.

[Dr The Singh]

If you can afford to educate your children privately then I believe it is your duty to do so!

I certainly wouldn't send my child to a state school if I could afford not to.

There's a great private school just around the corner from me and it isn't that expensive.

If the government gave some kind of tax rebate to parents choosing this option then maybe more people would use private education for their children, thereby putting less pressure on state schools.

Agreed, If money was available I would send my kids to the best possible school possible!!!

[Janx]

If you can afford to educate your children privately then I believe it is your duty to do so!

I certainly wouldn't send my child to a state school if I could afford not to.

There's a great private school just around the corner from me and it isn't that expensive.

If the government gave some kind of tax rebate to parents choosing this option then maybe more people would use private education for their children, thereby putting less pressure on state schools.

Dyknow What... I totally agree! After all the 5K a year (or whatever) it costs to school Janx Jr has been taken away from them.... I would be glad of even half that to help towards expenses!

[Leonisco]

I don't see anything wrong with this at all. She has the right to send her child to school where she wants to, just as everyone else does. Granted not everyone has the money to do so, but she can't be blamed for giving her child the best education (in her opinion) possible.

Well said.

If her son's got learning difficulties and would benefit from a private school, why the fook should she leave him at a state school that can't cater for his needs? Every parent wants the best for their kids, Ruth Kelly is no different.

[The People's Hero]

Well, as a casual observer, I've got to say, it looks like that TPH has hit the nail on the head. Again.

Does he ever tire of doing so?

[lookwhaticando]

As if an MP would send their own kids to the state run comprehensives.

Cabinet MPs can more than afford to send their kids to a proper school where the education isn't shit, where good teachers are paid good money to teach subjects properly. So they do.

And who can blame them?

I can't say, personally, one way or another if the particular schools I attended held me back or pushed me onwards. I fear the first case to be most likely. My primary school was fine as far as I recollect, the classes were of pretty even footing. My second primary school was weird to be fair. A school of just 78 pupils at the time (78 - that was the entire school, from ages 4 to 11). The school was split into three groups - Group One (Reception year, year 1 and 2); Group Two (Years 3 and 4) and Group 3 (two bright students from Year 4, and year 5 and 6 students).

That cut down on the number of teachers needed, and it didn't make a hell of a lot of sense to divide the school by years as at one point there were just three people in year 3.

Even so... the classes were about 25 students each, typically. The material taught was on a rotational basis - two year periods. That is, when the fresh batch came into year 5, they were being taught new stuff that was also new to the year sixes - nobody missed out on anything. This wasn't really holding anyone back - some people learned year six stuff in year five and vice-versa.

My first secondary school was pretty good. A LEA run school of about 600 students. The good thing about that school was the good disciplinary record it had. Class disruption was virtually non-existent for the most part. It was a safe environment and no real trouble makers. I think this school was quite good over all. It was quite a narrow range of educational talents - because of a larger comprehensive nearby where most people tended to go.

My second secondary school was not so hot. It was in a town of 20,000 with a few small villages around it. It was one of two schools in the town, and the bigger of the two. It was much bigger than my last school - with about 1050 students when I joined. The broader range of students led to some problems. The biggest problem we encountered in my year-half was a couple of pupils who caused no end of problems at the school. You know the type - they smoke, they drink, they raise hell in class, they cause problems during lunch and so on...

Anyway... three such lads, a sort of collective of wankers, had been causing problems in their classes (surprise of surprises, these kids were all in set 3 or set 4 in respective subjects - basically pretty thick people). As a set 1 student, you don't expect your class to have thick people in it. Well, as it happens, we ended up with some of them on a rotational basis.

Having caused problems in their set four class, they got split up and put in set four, set three and set two classes each - just to keep them apart. It didn't work, they caused problems in all their respective new homes. So, it was decided that they should be rotated from set to set all the time. So we ended up with one of them too - in set one. He wasn't being taught the material we were, he was learning his own stuff from textbooks the set four teacher had given him.

He proved to be quite the distraction, though. Constantly asking for help from our teacher during class. Asking questions relating to our material - which he couldn't possibly have understood - just to get out of doing his own work. He really caused problems in our science classes as he was always disrupting our education.

I still think the school handled these retards incorrectly. Not only did they fail to manage his behaviour on school premises, they also effectively disrupted the education of 200 science students one way or another.

[Hullfox]

I am not a fan of Mr Blair or his cronies including Ms Kelly.

However, it is nice to see that she is actually putting her duties as a parent before any party political point scoring opportunities.

Whether or not she was shit at her job as Education secretary should not come into it. All her kids will want to know as they grow up is that she did her best for them.

[Webbo]

If you can afford to educate your children privately then I believe it is your duty to do so!

I certainly wouldn't send my child to a state school if I could afford not to.

There's a great private school just around the corner from me and it isn't that expensive.

If the government gave some kind of tax rebate to parents choosing this option then maybe more people would use private education for their children, thereby putting less pressure on state schools.

100% agree. the problem i have with this is the labour party trying to stop other people sending their kids private.

also my youngest daughter has severe dyslexia similar to ruth kelly's child. every time we manage to get some special help for her its cancelled a few weeks later because the school can't afford it.

[lookwhaticando]

The best education system is one that allows you to choose, based upon your child's needs.

The broad comprehensives are designed to cover huge ranges of students from children with serious learning deficiencies, to excellent students who will go on to become brain surgeons and so on. In theory.

Problem is, without enough flexibility to allow education to be customized based on a particular group's abilities/inabilities, some students are held back by the system or never helped enough to allow them to overcome problems they face in the educational sense.

The best students should be able to go to schools which push them ever further forward, to make the most of their particular talents. Students such as these need to be challenged and encouraged to press on with their education. Highly skilled knowledge workers are vital to an economy such as ours - it makes no sense to hold back the brightest students in run-down comprehensives.

The students with learning difficulties, on the other hand, should be guided and helped as much as possible - they need special attention that they just can't receive at your average cash-strapped comprehensive. With special attention they may not be able to banish their difficulties altogether, but in a suitable environment there's no reason they can't overcome these difficulties and achieve things at school.

Regular state schools limit the best students by failing to challenge them. They limit special students by not being able to help them overcome their educational difficulties.

Choice and flexibility is needed to allow children to be put into an education that suits their needs.

[Ultra]

I seriously suffered at the primary school I attended. It was my local school but in the time I was there went from 15/20% special needs to over 50%. This held me back big time as with a number of my friends whom I believe might have passed the 11+ otherwise. The problem was the school was so inclusive and the teachers' time was taken up helping those with special needs.

Some folk might say similar things about this forum..

[Ultra]

100% agree. the problem i have with this is the labour party trying to stop other people sending their kids private.

also my youngest daughter has severe dyslexia similar to ruth kelly's child. every time we manage to get some special help for her its cancelled a few weeks later because the school can't afford it.

The old Labour policy of attempting to provide the best education for ALL children (not just the brightest and/or those whose parents could afford it) was perfectly sound.

Having found out more about Ruth Kelly's circumstances I find it difficult to criticise her decision.

But maybe she'll be a little more understanding towards the parents of other children with special needs in the future, for whom going private would never be an option.

[Webbo]

The old Labour policy of attempting to provide the best education for ALL children (not just the brightest and/or those whose parents could afford it) was perfectly sound.

Having found out more about Ruth Kelly's circumstances I find it difficult to criticise her decision.

But maybe she'll be a little more understanding towards the parents of other children with special needs in the future, for whom going private would never be an option.

holding back the brightest kids by making them learn at the pace of the slowest helps no-one, not the brightest nor the not so bright.